Then the executioner takes his place as the next mass murderer in the community.

Isn’t the whole idea to stop the killing, not perpetuate it or participate in it?

I personally see a big moral difference between someone who murders innocent people with impunity and someone who is appointed by society to remove those people from that society, permanently. You may not agree, but as I stated before sometimes the only way to protect society from some of it’s members is to remove them.

Besides, were it not for the murderers, there would be no need for executioners. However, none of the societies on our planet have yet attained that point of universal behavioral restraint. Hopefully, in the future we will attain that level civility, but I would not be too hopeful of that happening before we cause our own eventual demise.

Personally I find it morally repugnant that we spend billions of dollars on the care and housing of these miscreants when that money could be spent caring for the poor, disabled and elderly in this country.

Personally I find it morally repugnant that we spend billions of dollars on the care and housing of these miscreants when that money could be spent caring for the poor, disabled and elderly in this country.

So the only fly in your ointment is that a miscreant may be hiding up the next dark alley. There are a multitude of equally prosperous societies on this planet far less violent than this one, Cowboy.

Sadly, the notion that what is morally repugnant is the billions of dollars is the defining characteristic of a society that creates a need to warehouse so many “miscreants”. For better or worse, the meme of individual responsibility is also a defining characteristic of this mindset. Through thick and thin, having the cake and eating it is the wish. Sorry, Mr. Smith, you won’t get sent to Washington by the likes of me, but you really should run for office. I see you running for dogcatcher, and winning big.

By the way, what the US spends “billions” of dollars in warehousing are people up on narcotics charges. The way the US justice system deals with capital cases is expensive, but not to the tune of billions.

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]So the only fly in your ointment is that a miscreant may be hiding up the next dark alley. There are a multitude of equally prosperous societies on this planet far less violent than this one, Cowboy.

I’ve never been one to frequent dark alleys with Old Paint, never had a reason to, being a country boy. As to the reasons for our unusually violent society, they are many and varied. You’re a smart guy, pick your favorite one, or dozen. Coming up with a remedy for the causes will take time and a lot of effort in many areas. However, as I understand it, at least some of the propensity for violent behavior is genetic, so removing those genetic contributors is at least one step in the right direction.

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]By the way, what the US spends “billions” of dollars in warehousing are people up on narcotics charges. The way the US justice system deals with capital cases is expensive, but not to the tune of billions.

Point taken on narcotics offenders. The jailing of marijuana offenders in particular and other users of illegal drugs is a farce. The amount of money spent on drug interdiction, convicting and jailing drug users, trafficers and dealers is ridiculous. So what is your solution to the drug problem? Legalize some or all drugs? Treat them like alcohol and gamnbling and regulate and tax them? Inquiring minds want to know.

According to the figures I could find, it costs about $90,000 to $100,000 per year to house the roughly 3400 death row inmates or in the area of $340 million. Also according to the figures I could find, it costs the states with the death penalty a total of between $2 million and $3 million to convict and execute a felon. So, if all 3400 of those sentenced to death are executed, thats $6 and $10 billion.

However, as I understand it, at least some of the propensity for violent behavior is genetic, so removing those genetic contributors is at least one step in the right direction.

Ridiculous. The US is too new a society to have a differentiated gene pool. We can see that most societies from which US citizens originally came a few generations ago (in the vast majority of cases) are much less violent than US society today. Therefore, the causes are not genetic.

Signature

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

Ridiculous. The US is too new a society to have a differentiated gene pool. We can see that most societies from which US citizens originally came a few generations ago (in the vast majority of cases) are much less violent than US society today. Therefore, the causes are not genetic.

Unless of course a violent history and associated problems is one of the reasons people are motivated to leave their home countries and immigrate to the US ...

Byron

Signature

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Although the death penalty is sure to deter the particular criminal from reoffending, it does not act as a deterrent in society as a whole. Violence does seem to breed violence.

What is ‘evil’? How do we determine whether someone is it? People kill people for all sorts of reasons. The end effect is always that someone is dead, no matter what the motives of the killer. So, do we punish the deed (in which case all soldiers killing during war would need to be executed) or the individual’s psychological makeup (in which case how do we determine which personality traits require killing off)?

A friend of mine had a son. Her son was shot and killed, along with two other people.

But the killer’s parents had a lot of money and they paid for the “best” lawyers they could find. The killer was convicted, but he served only three years in prison.

Believe me, I understand people who say that this murderer should die. I agree. I want to kill him. I want to kill him myself. I want to kill his parents too.

But people who want a “death penalty” as part of a criminal justice system are ignoring an obvious fact. If there is a “death penalty”, they will kill someone who does not deserve it. We know that because the experiment has already been done. We have already executed innocent people.

If you want to see what a society that is built on revenge looks like, look at the middle east. The people involved in their vendettas die, but the hatred lives on. It’s an ugly thing. I don’t want it.

Do you dislike murder? Do you want to do something about it? Then forget about revenge and do something about justice. Do something about a corrupt society that values money over everything else and kills murderers who have no money, and lets murderers who have money receive no punishment or minimal punishment.

That’s a lot more complicated and difficult than execution revenge killings. But real life is not simple, and it’s hard.

This is obviously a debate-stopper in my opinion. All other arguments aside, the system has to be 100% perfect 100% of the time before we employ it, else we immediately become murderers ourselves, and thus the penalty becomes deserved by us as individuals. If this utter pefection is not acheivable (and it’s not), then we have no right or business employing it.

If 1 innocent person is wrongly or mistakenly executed, the system is of no value, because it commits the very crime it seeks to redress or prohibit. And far more than 1 person has died wrongly.

No other argument can stack up against this for two reaosns: First, because an innocent life has no price tag on it and second, there is no way to give back life itself once taken.

This is obviously a debate-stopper in my opinion. All other arguments aside, the system has to be 100% perfect 100% of the time before we employ it, else we immediately become murderers ourselves, and thus the penalty becomes deserved by us as individuals. If this utter pefection is not acheivable (and it’s not), then we have no right or business employing it.

If 1 innocent person is wrongly or mistakenly executed, the system is of no value, because it commits the very crime it seeks to redress or prohibit. And far more than 1 person has died wrongly.

No other argument can stack up against this for two reaosns: First, because an innocent life has no price tag on it and second, there is no way to give back life itself once taken.

Your argument is unconvincing. Innocent people have been incarcerated. Does that mean we should do away with prison sentences? Time spent locked up can no more be given back than “life itself once taken.”

And why do you say an innocent life has no price tag? What emotionally charged ideology leads you to that conclusion?

Signature

Do-gooding is like treating hemophilia—the real cure is to let hemophiliacs bleed to death, before they breed more hemophiliacs. -Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

I think that the Texas Seven are a good argument for the death penalty, even though I’m in favor of abolishing it because it puts us in the same class as Iran. The possibility that a convicted murderer might escape and murder someone else or kill a prison guard has always seemed to me to give rational grounds for executing the murderer. But, again, I don’t want to be in the same group as Iran, so I’m for abolishing it.

However, as I understand it, at least some of the propensity for violent behavior is genetic, so removing those genetic contributors is at least one step in the right direction.

Genetic cleansing !?...now where was it
that they used that kind of methods ?!

Ring a bell ?

Signature

Christian psychopaty:

Bruce Burleson
“.Tell me why it is wrong to rape, steal and kill….
…If I am a slaveholder in Alabama in 1860, why shouldn’t I enslave the niggers, fuck their women, and whip their children when they disobey me????
I’ll tell you why, and it is the ONLY reason why..”

..he fears gods punishment.

Christians per definition has no moral.
They are governed by fear and fear only.

Now that’s the first good argument for killing
‘one innocent man’ that I’ve ever heard.

Signature

Christian psychopaty:

Bruce Burleson
“.Tell me why it is wrong to rape, steal and kill….
…If I am a slaveholder in Alabama in 1860, why shouldn’t I enslave the niggers, fuck their women, and whip their children when they disobey me????
I’ll tell you why, and it is the ONLY reason why..”

..he fears gods punishment.

Christians per definition has no moral.
They are governed by fear and fear only.